Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

2,889 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    -All things naval, especially from a technical perspective
    -History in general

Recent Profile Visitors

9,697 profile views
  1. I think there is a somewhat basic misunderstanding of cruisers, their types, and roles that is plaguing this thread. The first thing that should be underlined is that a 'heavy cruiser' is a very artificial term, created by Part III of the 1930 London Naval Treaty, and were the 'category A' cruisers defined by that treaty as having guns larger than 155mm (6.1"). Anything else fell into category B. These limits were then used to enforce limits on the number of cruisers that could be built by the parties signatory to Part III of the Treaty - the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan - in either category. These category A ships became known as heavy cruisers, to distinguish them from the basic type of cruiser that was universally dominant after WWI - the light cruiser. This is because all the heavy cruisers were in fact light cruisers, as far as an actual ship type went, in the sense of what evolved from the protected and armor cruisers prior to WWI. In fact, most navies prior to the 1930 LNT had called all their 10,000-ton, 8" gunned ships light cruisers. This included the USN with the Pensacola and Northampton-classes, Italy with the Trento and Zara-classes, France with the Duquesne and Suffren-classes. The Japanese, meanwhile, described all their front-line cruisers as 'A-class/grade' even prior to the WNT, nevermind the LNT. This is because, as basic ship types, these were light cruisers, and regardless of their heavier caliber armament versus prior light cruiser designed, which tended to be much smaller than 10,000 tons standard, were expected to fill similar roles - in some cases trade protection, but mostly as fleet scouts. The construction of smaller light cruisers with 152mm (6") guns pre-dated the 1930 LNT and its enforced limits on 8" cruiser construction, and was done primarily to secure smaller and cheaper ships with more specific roles than the 10,000-ton light cruisers, which tended to be quite expense. Italy, for example, pursed the 'large scout' designs of the Giussano and Cadorna-classes as specific counters to French large destroyers (contre-torpilleurs), for which high speed and powerful but rapid-firing armament was preferred - which inevitably meant 152mm guns, especially on ships of such limited tonnage (5,100 tons standard). Britain likewise the 7,178-ton Leander-class cruisers, which had 6" guns, as these were substantially cheaper than the 'County' or York-class cruisers, which meant more of them could be procured... but also because most of the fleet officers in the RN made it well known that in their opinion smaller cruisers like these were better for operations with the fleet than the larger types. They valued maneuverability of the ships and high-rate-of-fire 6" guns as being better for countering destroyer attacks, general fleet support functions, and for shadowing enemy formations. Larger cruisers were seen as better suited to trade protection or acting as fleet scouts. From 1930 and onwards, when the idea of a 'heavy' cruiser as a subtype of the light cruiser became a thing thanks to the first LNT, and those types were being specifically limited by the treaty (USN was capped at 18, RN+RAN at 15, IJN at 12), these navies began to explore other options for arming cruisers of similar displacement to all their 8" treaty-maximum light (now 'heavy') cruisers without using guns larger than 155mm. In Europe, most of these ships didn't immediately reach for maximum displacement because this wasn't generally required by the caliber and the missions required - a good example of this is the steady improvement of Italian light cruiser designs of the early 1930s, from the Montecuccoli and Duca d'Aosta-class (somewhat 'true light cruiser' counterparts to the earlier 'large scouts') to finally the Duca degli Abruzzi-class which were very much designed to be fleet cruisers that could slug it out with 10,000-ton types. You also have the similar 7,600-ton La Galissonnière-class from France also intended as fleet cruisers (though these were less ambitious). Japan and the United States, however, effectively immediately jumped to 10,000-ton types with 6" guns once they exhausted their allowed numbers of 'category A' cruisers, as regardless of caliber of armament these Pacific navies needed large ships to operate in the very same scouting role as the earlier 8" cruisers - though they were effectively headed off by the Second London Naval Treaty which cut down cruiser displacements to 8,000 tons standard. This, regardless, is what resulted in the Brooklyn and Mogami-classes, which is what prompted the British response in regards to the 'Town' classes. Japan was not very satisfied with this, as the fundamental role of their 'Class/Grade A' cruisers was to fight enemy cruisers, and really did not have much of a role for 6" gun cruisers in the same line as what the European navies or the USN used. This is why the Mogami-class was designed to allow the 155mm battery to be exchanged for 20.3cm guns (trading triples for twins) and executed shortly after they abandoned the treaty system. They also built their next class of heavy cruisers (Tone-class) as 203mm ships from the start despite early versions of the design begrudgingly adopting 155mm guns. Other navies continued to see value in the 6" gun cruiser type, as they were far less solely focused on fleet actions and valued the gun caliber for its higher rate of fire (and thus greater utility against flotilla ships) and much lesser weight, which meant it could be more easily used on smaller and thus cheaper designs - or afford any design using it more guns and probably more armor than a similarly sized design using 8" guns. Which perhaps reaches the ultimate dichotomy between 'heavy' and 'light' cruisers - or, really, between 8" light cruisers and 6" light cruisers. The 8" gun is generally more effective cruiser-sized targets (this can also include merchant ships and tankers), particularly at long ranges (13-22 km). However, the 6" gun is better against lighter ship types like destroyers, and is less weight intensive, which allows it to be more easily incorporated on balanced cruiser designs, or outright smaller types, versus 8" guns.
  2. Phoenix_jz

    Future Ship lines thread

    Unfortunately as far as sources available to me go, there isn't any hard information available as to the top speed of the Programme 1939 destroyers, but just given their dimensions I would not expect them to continue in the 38-knot tradition of most of the destroyers that preceded them. As far as the CMdO's go, top speed was moderated to 35 knots because wartime experience generally pointed to the fact that speeds past that weren't that useful. 35 knots was adequate to all tasks that could be expected of a destroyer, and rather focusing on good seakeeping and endurance was a better focus of energy, in regards to hull design and machinery, than trying to reach 38 knots. The Indomito-class took from the same hull design as the CMdO's and were built in the 1950s, when destroyers no longer had much of a need for high top speeds. These were primarily AAW and ASW ships, for which a 34-35 knot top speed was perfectly adequate. As far as gun rate of fire goes - many of the WWII guns did have relatively low rates of fire by the standards of the game, where cyclical rate of fire is everything, but I'm not really sure how much that will end up figuring into the balancing of the ships, because to be frank this is 2021 and WoWs is full of ships that have gun systems thoroughly divorced from the performance of their real-world counterparts, or ships from time periods well after WWII (ex, we have ships with refits that place them into the 1960s at this point) - so I'm not really as concerned with respecting IRL rates of fire now, versus what my stance was in, say, 2017. If WG turns around and starts whaling with the nerf bat on ships across the game, then I'll reconsider, but until that point I think the single-purpose 120/50 and 135/45 (M1937 & 38) can get by with reload buffs to moderate rates of fire. There are also, to be frank, more options available when we get to higher tiers. Ex, the post-war 135/45 did 20 rpm, the 135/53 did 25 rpm, the wartime development of the DP 120/50 could do >12 rpm, etc.
  3. Phoenix_jz

    Future Ship lines thread

    Kai-Agano (C-44) was 8,520 tons standard with a 2/3rds trial load of 9,670 tons. With its maximum fuel load set as 1,448 tonnes, it is safe to assume full load displacement would be about 10,053 tonnes, which results in a pool of, when fully upgraded, of 28,600 to 28,800 HP. This is pretty par for tier VI light cruisers - the issue with C-44 is more the highly anemic nature of its firepower, and heavily lacking protection, relative to other tier VI light cruisers. It also has a really long above-water citadel, so it's very much asking to get easily popped, which is a huge issue given it has to go fully broadside to bring its torpedoes to bear. This is sort of the inevitable weakness of IJN CLs - much as been explained by others in this thread, Japanese thought essentially dictated that any cruisers that were expected to fight other cruisers would be the 'Type A' cruisers, with 203mm guns or greater. 'Type B' cruisers (140-155mm) were flotilla leaders - they were meant to lead Japanese destroyer flotillas into battle, with their guns and armor being determined based on its ability to overpower contemporary American destroyers (and defend against their return fire). There was no intention of using them against enemy cruisers, which is why the concept of 'fleet' light cruisers as seen in European navies, as well as the USN, did not exist for the IJN. If World of Warships was a game that was less compressed, in terms of tiers, and the devs more open to low-tier content then there would certainly be a viable sub-line built around such gameplay that could run from tier IV to VI, but unfortunately that simply does not mesh with what the devs care about as far as this game goes. RM DDs That aside, as far as other lines that haven't been mentioned much; Italian destroyers are going to be difficult because at this point many of the flavors that could have worked for them have been taken by other lines, so there really isn't much left for them. Italian destroyer designs are also somewhat hampered, in game terms, by the fact that those that made it onto the slips up until the CMdO's were fairly conservative designs, and there are no real designs past the CMdO's that focus on surface warfare in the WWII context, which is what this game revolves around. Thus, the RM is somewhat limited in terms of high tier options, because they don't have the continuity of destroyer construction as seen by the USN or RN, or the march of blueprints (ex, VMF) regardless of how rational the designs are (KM, looking at you). That said, the aren't lacking in low-tier options, and it would be pretty easy to design a line split around the normal destroyers and the larger, more gun-focused light scouts (esploratori leggeri), with the former more focused on using smoke and rapidly reloading torpedoes, and the latter built more around raw speed and gunpower, as well as possibly keeping mind the trend of sacrificing torpedo firepower for more AA (but given how useless AA is at this point, I'm not sure if it would constitute a noticeable flavor). Said lines would appear as such; The normal line would start at tier II with the Palestro-class, and past that one can either to stick with the regular destroyers (via the Curtatone-class) or to move to the light scouts (via the Poerio-class). Down the regular destroyer line, all ships from tier II to tier VII would be normal options - all classes built and commissioned that fought in WWII. Tier VIII would constitute the first blueprint ships, utilizing the Programme 1939 destroyers from the FY1939/1940 program that were cut when the program as a whole fell apart due to the escalation of the international situation into open war in 1939. This class would introduce quadruple torpedo tubes to the line as well as DP main guns, as well as the generally moderated top speed of the high-tier Italian destroyers to 35 knots. Tier IX would consist of the second or third series of the Comandanti-class, which, again, are actual designs, though the third series were never laid down, only the first (while material for the second series were gathered on the slips, iirc none were formally laid down. I leave either the second or third series ships as options, as the main difference between the two is the fact that the third series has an extra boiler (from 3 to 4) for better redundancy, and adds an extra 20mm quadruple mount. The main a-historical modification I would push for the class is to enable an upgrade that swaps the triple tubes the class were actually designed with for the quadruple mounts introduced on the Programme 1939 design. The tier X would be the most egregious change, as I would be taking the base form of the post-war Indomito-class destroyers (which are based on the hull of the CMdO's) and modifying them fairly extensively - the pair of 5"/38 twins they mounted historically I would remove and replace the the 135/45 twins used on the reconstructed Giuseppe Garibaldi, as these have the same ballistic performance as the 135mm guns introduced on the CMdO's, but are capable of 20 rpm. The amidships zones where the ASW torpedo tubes and ships boats are stored would have to be reconstructed in order to allow conventional torpedoes to be fitted. Potentially the aft deckhouse two with modifications as to the position of the 40mm armament. The light scout line, starting at tier III, would take you through all the historical light scouts designed and built from WWI to the 1920s, up until tier VII where the first blueprint design is encountered, which were 2,100-ton (standard) ships from 1934 based on the Maestrale-class destroyers, but armed with six 120/50 (three twins, with two mounts superfiring forward and one aft, and improved AA. Full load reached about 2,800 tons, but much of the improvements came at the cost of having a single triple launcher for torpedoes. Tier VIII would be Spalato, which was a large captured Yugoslav destroyer (the former Split), which the Italians intended to re-arm with five 135mm guns and an extensive AA armament - but again, at the cost of having but a single triple torpedo bank (the conversion was not completed before the armistice, however). Tier IX would be a Capitani Romani-class cruiser, but 'destroyer-ified' in terms of game mechanics (ex, no citadel) in order to make it fit into the game as a whole. Tier X would be a modification of the San Giorgio-class destroyer leaders (themselves reconstructed Capitani Romani. In this case, we take a route similar to Indomito, though in this case replacing the 5"/38 twins (one fore, two aft) with the 135/53 (also fitted to Garibaldi, after the /45's), which had improved ballistics (heavier shells fired at higher velocity), with rate of fire further boosted to 25 rpm. Once again, we'd have to modify deck space to allow the fitting of torpedo banks - and for the sake of unique AA, I'd replace 40mm quad mounts with the 76/62 Allargato to double down on aircraft deletion memes. It's worth noting in this form the ships had greater displacement than the Capitani Romani pre-rebuild, and top speed fell to about 39 knots. Now, as far as other potential lines - Italian cruisers have been pretty thoroughly f*cked between what WG did to their line and the way the Italian 152mm guns were translated into the game (long story), but working around the monstrosity that is the tech tree line, it is still plenty possible to pull off a large cruiser line by taking advantage of various Italian 'pocket cruiser' and large cruiser designs. To give a quick run-down; UP.90 mod. 1937 (or UP.90bis) is a light cruiser version of the base UP.90 design from 1936. 8,000 tons standard, 30 knots, 100mm belt, 65mm deck, 3x3 152/55, 6x2 100/47. It would basically be a better armored and armed CL upgrade from Montecuccoli, albeit at great cost in speed. UP.90 is a 'pocket battleship' style cruiser from 1936, which uses the same hull as described above, but is armed with 2x3 254mm/55. A variant intended for Chile exists that uses the American 5"/51 (6x2) as the main secondary gun, but otherwise it's still the 100/47. UP.102 is from 1937 as with UP.90bis, and is 10,500 tons standard. Top speed is 31 knots, armor belt is 102-120mm, deck is 65mm, main battery is 2x3 280mm/50 and secondary battery is 6x2 120/40 or /45. It was marketed by Ansaldo to Romania and Sweden but is very likely just an evolution of an RM design from circa 1930. The 17,500-ton battleship is another pocket-battleship-esque design, from 1934. Standard displacement is 17,500 tons, top speed is 30 knots, and the armor scheme essentially duplicates that of a Zara-class cruiser. Main battery is 2x3 254/55, secondary battery is 4x2 152/53 and 6x2 100/47 Ansaldo's 22,000-ton large cruiser is a design exported to the USSR in 1936, displacing 22,000 tons standard and 26,700 tons full load. Top speed was 37 knots, and the main armament included 3x3 250mm, 6x2 130mm, an 6x2 100mm. This is what ended up as 'Napoli' in-game, but 'Napoli' is frankly a terrible translation of what this design might look like in Italian service, so IMO it could be done again and be made to look better. Things like fitting either a 135mm & 90mm armament, or, taking advantage of the fact it's tier X, a unified 120mm or 135mm DP armament. AA could be either 65mm/64 & 20mm, or with a post-war take, 76mm/62 alone or 76mm/62 & 40mm/70. Main battery would again be 254/55. I'd also note you could do something similar with the Italian battleship line, which is pretty terribly executed at tier IX and X. Actual follow-on designs and concepts for the Littorio-class could be used at tier IX and X (IX could be a real design, X would have to be fudged, and a second line could be designed around the WWI-era theme of 'more guns'. Ex; The 41,000-ton design in the fast battleship line (actually 45,000 tons standard) is the successor to the Littorio-class, which had a top speed of 32 knots and a main armament of 3x3 406/50. 'Piave' is just a placeholder name for an inevitably fudged design that would need to exist at tier X, but anything other than WG's 'Colombo' would be a better pick. As far as the Feratti line goes; The 27,000-ton battleship was the initial successor of the Duilio-class battleships, drawn up in 1912, until succeeded by the 15" designs from 1913 that eventually resulted in the Caracciolo-class. Displacement was 27-29,000 tons, top speed 23-25 knots, and a main armament of 13x (same arrangement as the Cavour & Duilio-class) 356/45, and 20x 152/45 in casemates. The Ferrati Design F was an 2x4 (two quad, one fore, one aft) 381/40 design by the same designer of the Francesco Caracciolo-class. Displacement was 27,300t, with a 25-27 knot top speed and 270mm armor belt. Secondary battery was in eight twin turrets, but not defined explicitly, just given as '170/50', along with 24x 102/50. The Ferrati Design D bis was part of the same series, and added a third main battery turret (3x4 A-X-Y), this time using the 381/45. Secondary battery was 6x2 '170/50' and 20x 102/50. Displacement was 33,200t, with the same speed and armor range as Design F. The Ferrati Design G' is the last design in the series, and takes us to 37,200t, with four main battery turrets (A-B-X-Y) with the same guns. Secondary battery yet again features 8x2 '170/50', 24x 102/50, again with a 270mm belt (+310t for every cm of thickness added). 'XVI-381/50' is another placeholder - realistically it would be something in the style of 'Colombo', a 4x4 using the 381/50. Ideally more rationally executed than what WG gave us, but that's generally asking for too much in my experience XD /end rant
  4. Getting to this a bit late, but it's probably worth highlighting that the era of 'peak' Jeune École (1880s) is the point when the torpedo appeared as a viable weapon, and ships did not yet have particularly effective counters to torpedo boats. This lack of easy ways to counter such ships combined with their high hitting power is what gave them their formidable capability to defend coastal areas from larger warships. With the increasing proliferation of quick-firing guns in the 1890s, not only on battleships but also on cruisers and larger torpedo-boat destroyers, and improved fire control capabilities and ship speeds allowing for greater engagement ranges, the effectiveness of torpedo boats began to drop off, and reduced their ability to act as credible deterrents to the use of larger ocean or sea-going warships. It is always useful to keep this in mind when discussing Jeune École, since the rapidly changing capabilities of the gun and torpedoes from the 1870s to the early 1900s (nevermind hulls, machinery, armor, etc) essentially made a constantly changing paradigm that resulted in many navies see-sawing between different strategies. Another element of the era that should not be separated from the discussion of Jeune École, at least in regards to who adopted it, is the fact it was a highly politized ideology, especially since it came at a time of great liberalization and freedom of press in many European nations. Thus, newspapers and journals were often just as much platforms for the debate of naval strategy as were parliaments, despite the fact such discussions should have really been something taking place between professionals in Navy General Staffs. For example, within France, Jeune École as a concept was taken up by left-wing parties to attack traditionalists and colonialists (which is ironic given the origins of Jeune École), while traditionalist approaches to the navy were thus taken up by the opposite side, and the colonialists likewise were in their own faction with their own idea about how the navy should be oriented. In Italy the question of Jeune École vs a traditional battleship fleet was likewise something of a political football until the advocates of Jeune École were decisively defeated in the early 1880s.
  5. Phoenix_jz

    Impetuoso/ Indomito-class Destoryer designs?

    Nope - I've considered doing the reconstruction actually executed as an April Fools proposal, but otherwise - it's a guided missile cruiser, so it's beyond the scope of the game. The earlier gun-only conversion, meanwhile, I only found about more recently, and unfortunately I also lack much in the way of specific information beyond the fact that it was gun-only based using the 135/45 twins and the 76/62 quads - so a write-up is beyond my resources at the moment.
  6. Phoenix_jz

    Impetuoso/ Indomito-class Destoryer designs?

    I think you're mixing up classes and eras here. All the initial post-war newbuild or rebuilt classes of the 1950s were armed with the American 5"/38, as the best option available, as Italian industry was still recovering from the war. These are the; Indomito-class laid destroyers, both laid down in 1952 and completed in 1958 San Giorgio-class destroyer leader reconstructions of the Capitani Romani started in 1953 and completed 1955-56 Impavido-class guided missile destroyers laid down 1957-59 and completed 1963-64 At this point in time it can best be said that there was more recovery going on in the area of lighter AA guns (with the first versions of the 76mm being developed and entering service in this timeframe), fire control systems, and radar. The saga of the post-war 135mm gun begins in the 1950s, with the wartime 135/45 beginning as the root of efforts to develop a new post-war gun. It was envisioned that this gun system could first be used on the light cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi, which in the 1950s was the subject of plans into an AA cruiser (not only with the 135/45 but also with quadruple 76/62 AA mounts based on the Sovrapposto twin mount design), but by the time the funds were available to act on this the design had shifted into a full-fledged guided missile cruiser. The reconstruction began in 1957 and completed in 1961, and though its main 'bite' were its missiles, it still used the new 135/45 - an automatic design with essentially the same ballistic properties of the wartime gun (33 kg shell fired at 825 m/s), but with a much higher rate of fire - 20 rpm (navweaps refers to this as the 135/45 M1957, though I don't know if that matches the actual designation). As subsequent procurement efforts did not include warships with large guns (the frigates all used the 76mm for their main guns and the helicopter cruisers also only had 76mm guns for self-defense), this did not provide much in the way of opportunity for the new gun. However, in the late 1960s a new class of destroyer - the Audace-class - was being procured, and they were to use the new gun. This gun was installed on Giuseppe Garibaldi in 1968 as a prototype - the 135/53 (completely replacing the 135/45 battery). This gun featured more powerful ballistics and an even greater rate of fire - 33.55 kg shells fired at 870 m/s, with a rate of fire of 25 rpm. The production version was then meant to equip the Audace-class, but then it was decided that it would be more advantageous to turn the gun into a 127mm weapon, allowing for commonality in ammunition with other NATO guns, and thus it was converted into a 127mm/54 - the well-known 127/54 Compatto, which fires the typical range of NATO 5" shells at a rate up to 40 rpm, and first entered service when the Audace-class were completed in 1972/73.
  7. Phoenix_jz

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    Nope, they were designed as battleships. They were actually quite well armored for their tonnage and balanced overall - though Dunkerque's belt armor in particular was relatively thin, her deck armor was quite good, as was her main battery protection and her torpedo defense system. A protective scheme is more than just a belt, after all. Even before the design we know as Dunkerque was finalized, the need to be able to resist 305mm guns of existing battleships they were likely to encounter (those of Italy) had been included in its requirements, and this was about as much as one could expect from a design of its tonnage (26,500 tons standard as designed). They were, all in all, quite balanced designs given their tonnage, and Strasbourg only doubled down on her protection.
  8. Phoenix_jz

    WW2 Battlecruiser ranking

    I'm aware I'm basically shouting at the winds here, but I'd disagree with placing a number of ships on this list. The Dunkerque-class and Scharnhorst-classes are all battleships, not battlecruisers - they're simply smaller than most of the 'full-sized' treaty battleships that ended up getting built. Likewise, the Alaska-class are 'large cruisers', which, though I'd agree were largely the spiritual successors to battlecruisers, are still of significantly different design philosophy to most of the later battlecruisers that survived into WWII (which is basically just Hood, Renown, Repulse, and the four Kongo's), which can make it quite difficult to compare them, especially given the sharp difference in age (Alaska is laid down in 1941, while Hood, the last battlecruiser, was laid down in 1916). They're just too far removed - it'd be like asking to compare König and Bismarck, because both are battleships (and, for the record, they have the same 25-year gap between being laid down that Hood and Alaska have). Hood is pretty indisputably the most powerful design, though her age and lack of major reconstruction does somewhat hurt her, since she's got the second oldest fire control system (a Dreyer Table Mk.V), if only because Repulse is running around with a Mk.IV*. The Kongo-class battlecruisers were all upgraded with the Type 92 in the 1930s, and likewise Renown was fitted with the AFCT Mk.VII, and that combined with the fact she was fitted with a Type 284 fire control radar gives her easily the best fire control of any of the battlecruisers on the list. Thanks to her more extensive modernization, Renown is certainly of greater utility than Repulse or the Kongo's, though, at the same time, Hood is simply much larger and more powerful than any of the other ships on the list, despite having fallen behind in terms of modernization.
  9. Phoenix_jz

    Naval and Defense News 2020-21

    Correct, technically the first 'true' light cruiser Italy built, given the earlier Giussano and Cadorna-classes were built as 'large scouts' (grande esploratori). Raimondo Montecuccoli was the lead of her two-ship class.
  10. Phoenix_jz

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    Heh, yeah, no. They had been planning for three Dunkerque's but the 330mm basically went out the window in favor of the 380mm as soon as they heard the Italians were moving to build 381mm battleships.
  11. Phoenix_jz

    How feasible are the high tier Italian BBs?

    No problem, always happy to weigh in, even if at this point I'm more dreading their efforts to incorporate Italian destroyers than I am looking forward to it... The French, I don't think, were ever likely to go sticking that many of the 380mm on any upcoming battleships. They didn't even go for twelve in reality, when they chose between the three 'Alsace' varaints. Darlan was fairly set on acquiring a larger gun for the MN, requesting studies from the DAN for 400mm, 406mm, and 420mm on 20 July 1930, and likewise the entry for the 431mm naval gun in the French artillery archives comes from 1939, but due to the time it would take to develop a new gun and the need to lay down new battleships as soon as the slips were available, they weren't really an option. For the class we commonly call the 'Alsace'-class (though they actually didn't have a name beyond the informal 'classe Province' - Alsace was merely one of the names available for the two-ship class, along with Normandie, Flandre, and Bourgogne), the French ultimately ordered two the 'Type 1' 40,000-ton versions (3x3 380mm), in their last naval program (1 April 1940), though as far as anyone knows at this point in time they still thought the new German H-class battleships were 40,000 tons standard (which they were considerably more than), though they did correctly peg their armament at 406mm guns. It's possible the under-estimated the armor protection these ships might have and thus felt the 380mm was still adequate. If WWII had not happened when it did, but some years down the line, allowing for European battleship construction to run its course, it is hard to imagine the French would have stuck with the 380mm past the first pair of 40,000-ton battleships, as the true displacement of the H-class would have become apparent eventually, and likewise they would be faced with the Italians likely starting their 406mm battleships to their south. The British were also making their move on 406mm battleships before this, with the Lion-class. If the French had the ability to build a battleship large enough take four quads, they'd have certainly either built something slightly smaller with the 'classic' 4x3 406mm arrangement, or perhaps something different with the 431mm guns. Keeping in mind general size limitations, and the fact the French preferred the A-Y quad arrangement to the A-B arrangement, as much as I dislike République's appearance, it might make the most sense as far as main battery arrangements go if the French did go to a 431mm gun - though you'd still need a ship greater than 45,000 tons standard to do it for sure. That said, République's design is not the most rational (mixing 152mm and 127mm guns...), so you probably wouldn't need quite something of her displacement to get that armament either. I've not seen any mention of any work done for guns past 406mm by Italy. Even the only 'back of napkin' design, which called for a 456mm gun (the Cassone battlecruiser), is barely that as the the battleship/battlecruiser sketched is merely a hypothetical for an article in the October 1921 edition of Rivista Marittima, and the admiral who authored it only 'created' the example as a means of illustrating some points on technical developments or potential future ships. It's definitely worth being skeptical about. Unfortunately the thread most of the discussion about what was found on it has since been 'archived' by WG when the NA team reshuffled their forums, so that's kind of gone as a reference, but long story short we don't know a lot about it and how it was intended to work beyond the basic ballistics. Unfortunately, while I know the ship design was from CRDA, I don't know who was supposed to be working on the gun.
  12. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    When it comes to how a shell is going to perform, it very much does have to do with the math. And real-life experience certainly backs that up. Things like shell structure, it's overall mass, sectional density, and, of course, it's impact velocity all factor into that. The APC used by the British 16"/45 Mk.I had very poor sectional density, as it was a lightweight shell for its caliber, and as a result was easily the weakest 16" gun in service by the time WWII was fought. Compared to the APC used by the Italian 381/50, which was much heavier for its caliber, and head a heavy AP cap optimized for vertical penetration, it's penetration. Thus, it's capable of penetrating much more in the way of armor, especially since it was fired at a higher velocity and was much better at retaining that velocity in flight. A comparison to Nevada not being sunk by Iowa and the ships with her really doesn't much to dispute that. Expending ammunitions against a ship empty of fuel and ammunition makes it much harder to sink, nevermind the fact that trying to sink a battleship outright with nothing but shells is quite difficult in the first place. This also ignores the fact that the gunfire directed at Nevada would have mission-killed her very early on had she been a 'live' target - much like how Bismarck was pounded for the better part of an hour and a half by the British in her final action, but in reality she had been effectively silenced within half an hour of being engaged. No doubt Nevada was severely damaged by the gunfire directed at her regardless, as it only took a single torpedo hit to get her to go under, but at the end of the day it didn't really matter that Iowa's guns were more than enough to defeat Nevada's armor, if the question was to outright sink her. What mattered was overcoming her buoyancy, and it takes an awful lot of shells to accomplish that against a battleship - especially one of the Standard-types. Hence why torpedoes are so commonly used to finish off targets even after they've been wrecked by gunfire - and that includes ships as large as battleships, and also down to those as small as destroyers.
  13. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    I mean, you're the one who brought it up. Sorry the math doesn't exactly agree with you. Enjoy the rest of your day.
  14. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    Thank you for supporting my point with data. Raw data is always helpful. Sort of like how it shows the APC of the 381mm/50 as having a mass 10.6% greater than the APC for the 38cm/48, and an overall sectional density 10% greater. Or how the dimensionally larger British 16" APC is only 5% heavier, and thus the sectional density of 381mm APC is 8.4% greater. This is, after all, part of the reason the 381/50 has greater penetration than the 38cm and 16"/45 Mk.I
  15. Phoenix_jz

    Bismarck reduced to Useless BB?

    The 'POS' shells that; Were heavier than those of the 38cm SK C/34 Had a thicker body and heavy AP cap considerably greater penetration didn't have a chronic dud issue and were fired at a much higher velocity than Rodney's 16" shells If Rodney was running around 381/50's she'd actually have had an easier time defeating Bismarck's armor, though unfortunately with not nearly as much explosive filler per shell. That said, that does produce heavier fragments when the shell explodes, even if not as many...